Connections in Climate Change. A Network Analysis of the EU-funded LIFE Sub-Programme for Climate Action

Climate change constitutes a complex and urgent challenge that requires the collaboration of diverse sets of public and private actors with different interests, values and way of conceiving and managing natural, environmental, and economic resources (Juhola et Westerhoff, 2011; Bodin, 2017; Ortega Díaz and Casamadrid Gutiérrez, 2018). Collaborative approaches can provide positive contributions to governance processes and their outcomes by joining the use of the material and non-material resources, facilitating information diffusion and sharing of rules for conflict resolution (Bodin et Crona, 2009). Nevertheless, collaborative governance also testifies criticisms in multiple circumstances. Thus, studies evidencing when and how collaborative governance is effective are in need (Crona and Bodin, 2006). In this realm, a network approach can be considered an appropriate instrument to understand better the complexity of severe environmental problems impacting on society, such as climate change (Oosterveer, 2018). As Borgatti et al. 2013 observe, differences in the structure of social networks have implications for governance and consequently for reaching its expected outcomes. The European Union plays an essential role in climate change adaptation and mitigation processes, proposing ambitious strategies to reach environmental and climate policy targets (i.e. Europe 2020 strategy and its targets and the 7th Environment Action Programme). In the last programming period, the attention to climate change has been strategically operationalised through an innovative sub- programme for climate action within the LIFE programme, focused on climate mitigation, adaptation, governance and information. The sub-programme cofounds environmental projects proposed by partnerships of public and private actors through grants (UE Regulation No. 1293/2013). In the frame of the scientific discussion on collaborative environmental governance, this study represents the first structural analysis based on bipartite (i.e. organisations and projects) and dynamic networks of the LIFE sub-programme on Climate Action. The study aims to explore the evolving patterns of betweenness and degree centrality measures (for individual nodes) and density and clustering (for the collaborative network), describing the critical structural features of the networks. Specifically, the study wants to address the following research questions: Q1. To what extent, have actors been connected through the LIFE sub-programme for Climate Action? Q2. To what extent, have actors entered or exit projects by forming or ceasing partnerships? Q3. To what extent, has the sub- programme supported intermediaries (betweenness centrality)? Which are the types of actors who maximise the transmission and control of information and resources among projects? Which is the relative level of influence of these central actors? (degree centrality)? Q4. To what extent is the network cohesive (density)? Has the sub-programme cohesiveness changed during the twelve years considered? To what extent is the network clustered (clustering coefficient)? Has the clustering changed during the eleven years considered? Q5. To what extent, has the sub-programme financed partnerships across Europe? Which are the countries attesting a better performance in terms of transnational cooperation? Data, research methodology and empirical results In order to access detailed data and information regarding LIFE Climate Action projects, the LIFE website has been consulted (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/) where the complete database of projects is available since the first edition of the Programme. Querying by theme and period, it is possible to obtain the full list of projects carrying the desiderated characteristics and thus accessing the general project information (i.e., title, project reference, duration, total budget, EU contribution, project location), and the specific ones related to the beneficiaries (i.e., coordinator, type of organisation, description, and partners excluding co-financiers). Data collected from the LIFE projects database were exported in two separated MS Excel spreadsheets (i.e. node files and edge files). The type of relationship is undirect 1 because it has been assumed the lack of directionality among nodes. Data in the spreadsheets have been used as input data for the SNA, implemented via GEPHY® software. Additional statistical elaborations have been performed via STATPLUS© and R statistical software focusing the attention on specific network statistics computed for the case of bi-partite and dynamic networks (i.e. betweenness and degree centrality measures, clustering coefficient and density of the network). Through LIFE, the European Commission has financed 189 projects (in 2007-2013 programming period) and 162 projects (in 2014-2017 programming period) on the topics of climate change mitigation, adaptation, governance and information. From 2007 to 2018 LIFE co-financed 351 coordinators and 1583 partners, some of them are involved in numerous projects. In this way, they can be considered as bridges from one project to another one. Computing network statistics such as degree centrality which is defined as the number of links incident upon a node (i.e., the number of ties that a node has) and betweenness centrality which quantifies the number of times a node acts as a bridge along the shortest path between two other nodes, results evidence that the degree centrality is on average 5,372 (2007- 2013) and 7,771 (2014-2017). These values represent the average number of relations a LIFE partnership has typically in the two programming periods considered. Concerning betweenness centrality measures, the nodes with the highest betweenness centrality are in South European countries (i.e., Spain, Italy and Greece) and they usually are public bodies such as research institutions. At the same time, private actors typically attest lower values, attesting a lower performance as project brokers. First conclusions The analysis of two networks created by actors implementing projects on climate action from 2007 to 2018 shows that the geographical distribution of financed actors is not homogenous. However, it is centralised on Spanish and Italian organisations (in both networks, 40% of nodes is composed of Italian and Spanish actors). LIFE represents the unique possibility to implement climate action projects in South European countries. Moreover, the Mediterranean area is the European region most affected by the effects of climate change (Ciscar et al., 2018). Thus, the centralisation of Mediterranean countries in the two networks can be justified by the higher relevance of climate change effects in those contexts. Besides the analysis reveals that only a few actors of South Europe (Italy, Spain and Greece) can act as a bridge between partners of different projects. On the contrary, projects implemented in North Europe tends to be more isolated. It is also possible to state that public bodies (research institutions and universities) are the most central actors in the network structure; in fact, they usually coordinate ad cofound many different projects. Finally, the comparison of the two networks evidences that connectivity between partners increased in the second network if compared to the first one. Thus, the creation of a new specific sub-programme for climate action has catalysed and improved the flow of knowledge, skills, capacities, and economic resources among actors involved in projects that face climate change.